750°

Even with a $1,200 graphics card, you still can’t max out RDR2 on PC

With Red Dead Redemption 2 now available on Windows PC, graphics card manufacturer Nvidia has announced its guidance for hitting 4K at 60 frames per second. Turns out that even its most expensive consumer-level GPU, the roughly $1,200 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, can’t get there at the highest settings. That means there’s plenty of headroom for driver optimizations, and/or the next generation of GPUs.

Neonridr1634d ago

It spends the majority of its time floating around the 40 fps mark.

mikeslemonade1634d ago (Edited 1634d ago )

We already new that. Every AAA game I play with my 2080ti I am only expecting to play on HIgh-Very High setting on 4k 60 frames; with zero Anti Aliasing.

We already knew rockstar will add extra PC options based on GTAV. GTAV is still one of the more demanding games.

carcarias1634d ago

Yeah, me too. The fact that 4k eliminates the need for anti-aliasing is quite a boon :)

1634d ago
mikeslemonade1632d ago (Edited 1632d ago )

It’s pretty smooth on my 55 inch QLED. The really noticeable jaggies are gone compared to 1080p.

Thunder_G0d_Bane1633d ago (Edited 1633d ago )

And the crazies think next gen consoles will run this game at 4k60 loool it will only achieve it by lowering texture quality and possibly dynamic resolution.

Next gen consoles will never run this at native 4k locked 60fps.

skiggy341633d ago

And your probably the only one that gives a shit....... The game runs naively at 4k on the X at 30fps. it had mostly high textures. Couple that with a GPU thats 2-3x stronger than the X and a cpu thats 4-6x stronger than the X with console optimization and if they pull 4k native (or dynamic to 1800p) at 60 with high settings a lot of console gamers will be happy and many pc enthusiasts will cry...

Christopher1633d ago (Edited 1633d ago )

***And the crazies think next gen consoles will run this game at 4k60 loool it will only achieve it by lowering texture quality and possibly dynamic resolution.***

So? Most people on PC next gen won't be able to have a PC that will play this game at 4k60 with everything enabled either. For $500 and with optimization, it will look pretty darn good and can definitely hit 4k60 with at least some high features enabled. But right now the best machine can't do it, why do you that will suddenly translate into a $500 equivalent PC in the next generation?

Ignore the hyperbolic comments more and don't buy into them as if they're the common person. People want 4k60 for performance reasons, not to match PC. We know PC is better. We also know the benefits of a console.

battlegrog1633d ago

Very very very few people will be experience this level on pc,So you gotta ask yourself, what does it matter

Computersaysno1633d ago (Edited 1633d ago )

Next gen consoles could run it 4K 60FPS, but it won't be at anything like the ultra level settings that you see here in the PC version.

It seems possible they could do a 4K 30FPS with most of these settings turned up. A $300 RX Radeon 5700 can do that now, which seems reasonable. In a year when those consoles arrive that card will only be lower midrange.

Sophisticated_Chap1633d ago

The other aspect to this, is that RDR2 is a current gen game. Imagine what kinds of graphical horsepower you'll need to run next-gen games. I'm actually in the planning stage for upgrading my PC, but more specifically, in the short term, my GPU. I think right now is the worst time to upgrade, and the high price of the RTX 2080TI, coupled with the fact that there is a current gen game that it cannot conquer at 4K/60, even with having 11GB of VRAM, means that I'll be waiting for Nvidia's Ampere GPU announcement and AMD's Navi 20 announcement.

Profchaos1633d ago

Not quite true the proposed Gpu may end up stronger than a 2080 plus historically most consoles can be better optimised and play better than a PC with equivalent hardware as less resources are needed for the host OS perfect example would be the PS3 and 360 generation tlou was running on a machine with 256 mb of ram when it launched 4gb of ram in a PC was the bare minimum you needed for games

KwietStorm_BLM1633d ago

So it won't run it at 4k60 or it will run it at 4k60 with lower settings? Which one is it?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1629d ago
2pacalypsenow1634d ago

Does the game even support SLI?

jivah1634d ago

Multi Gpu setups itself arent even supported like that anymore. Which is why you never hear about it. Its just has shit support.

2pacalypsenow1634d ago

That's why I was asking, I used to use SLI, till I realized it was a huge waste money since support is complete Sh**.

1633d ago
Profchaos1633d ago

They said it would be but people report it's not included. I have a feeling it will come as a patch

AuraAbjure1633d ago (Edited 1633d ago )

I hope they add official SLI support one day -even if it takes them a year to do it because we all know this game was built to last. It'd be cool having the ability to buy a couple used 1080 tis somewhere for about $220 a pop and then run them in SLI in order to experience RDR2 @4K 60fps max settings having only spent about $450 on gpus total. There's no way I'd care about missing out on RTX if a game would just officially support SLI. After all, two used 1080 tis could offer up to 40% more performance compared to that of a single new RTX 2070 Super for the same price or less.

carcarias1634d ago

Yeah but that's not surprising so I'm not sure why this article acts like it's news.

Besides, often all you need to do is change a few details down from ultra to high and you're good to go. Much of the time, you won't even really see the difference. Creed Odyssey was a similar situation.

I remember only getting 55fps on Dying Light. I simply switched shadows down from ultra to high and hey presto, 60fps. The difference was nothing, visually speaking. I mean, it's a game where you sprint around most of the time, I really didn't care if each leaf was accurately shaped and outlined sharply on the sidewalk as it swayed in the wind.

Volumetric clouds are another resource-hog where the second highest setting often isn't much different than the highest but'll give you a few frames extra.

1634d ago Replies(8)
rainslacker1634d ago

Not all cards even natively support some of the settings available to choose from, so turning them on can reduce performance because it's trying to do those things through normal processes, which takes away from other things.

yoshatabi1634d ago

I'm new to PC gaming. Do you mind telling me which settings are worth turning down while trying to get the best visual performance? I have a real good PC so I can play with everything on ultra. But like you said. The extra frames aren't worth the sacrifice if you won't even be able to tell the difference

Stanjara1633d ago

Wait for Digital Foundry video on this, it will pop up soon.

1633d ago
hollabox1633d ago

Shadows, and volumetric lighting are performance killers. Volumetric lighting makes a bigger visual difference so I keep VL settings to high. Shadow settings I usually turn down to high or medium. Most of the times high and ultra just offers either more diffused shadows, better shadow filtering, distance shadow pop up, and the ability to see individual leafs. Unless you're looking at the ground saying I'm seeing smooth black shadows it's not worth the performance hit. Depending on your resolution AA can cause a big hit. At 4K MSAA is almost useless, SMAA or TAA does a good job smoothing without a major performance at resolutions 1440 and higher. SMAA and TAA can make the image look specky, and or blurry, especially TAA at 1080P resolutions. I typically keep AA off unless I'm gaming at 1440P which rare, I'll take the extra 3-5 FPS at 4K for a few more specks when I'm borderline 60.

carcarias1633d ago (Edited 1633d ago )

Ultra shadows are demanding. Volumetric clouds are a resource hog too, along with certain smoke effects.
Nvidia hairworks can be demanding, depending on its implementation. If you're playing at 4k, I find I don't need anti-aliasing as the resolution keeps things sharp on its own. Draw distance is often a factor too.

Basically, start by turn off anti-aliasing. See what difference that makes.

Then lower all shadow settings to high (or maybe even medium for the main shadow setting).

If that doesn't quite get you to 60fps, put volumetrics to high or medium, depending on how much visual difference they make because it's not the same in all games. Or start with volumetrics and then move to shadows. Up to your preference. That's my basic process.

Like @Stanjara said though, Digital Foundry will probably do a detailed analysis :)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1633d ago
1634d ago
Show all comments (130)
120°

15 PS3 Games That Would Absolutely Shine as PS5 Remakes

GB: "With this feature, we talk about 15 games on the PS3 that should be remade for the PlayStation 5."

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
kenpachi16d ago

You left out The Darkness games bring those back

fan_of_gaming15d ago

The head of Nightdive Studios has posted that The Darkness is on their list of games they want to do, so hopefully something comes from that

Yi-Long15d ago

Little Big Planet 1 and 2 deserve a mention, IMO.

Good call on Motorstorm, a game released 2 gens ago but still looks and feels so good. Motorstorm 2 and Motorstorm RC were gems as well. They followed up the Motorstorm games with the brilliant Driveclub, which still manages to put modern racing games to shame. Imagine closing down a studio as talented as that ... (!) Incredible.

A little 'arcade-gem' back then was The Last Guy, a top down 'follow the leader' snake-like game where you had to find and lead survivors to safety during an alien invasion, on terrible looking 'Google-earth' maps. Graphics were poor, even back then, but would love that same gameplay with modern maps and graphics.

Street Fighter 4, once it finally had a full roster, was quite good, but it was always an ugly game, sadly. Imagine bringing that back while using the current SF6 engine.

fan_of_gaming15d ago

Good suggestions, I'd be in for
LittleBigPlanet
LittleBigPlanet 2
Motorstorm: Pacific Rift
Motorstorm: RC

purple10115d ago

God damn I love motorstorm so much

At the time I had a low-mid range sony 40” tv, The latency to the controller was waaaay too high, would to play a modern version

In saying that later I got a 3d lg tv and playing the 3d motorstorm in my bedroom with the environment crumbling around the track, was something special, specially compared to what others were playing at the time, will always remember that

Skuletor15d ago

Some good choices here and Resistance: Fall of Man is my most wanted PS3 remaster/remake. Not sure about their claim it was Sony's answer to Gears of War though.

CrimsonWing6915d ago

I’d rather have sequels than remakes. Look at Dead Space 1 Remake. Would’ve been cooler if we got a new entry and it failed with sales sealing the fate of a sequel rather than just replay the same game and it fail in sales and we never get a new entry.

Remakes are great for things like PS2 and earlier games to really get a crazy new graphical coat, but I think we should ease up on all these remakes and actually do sequels.

fan_of_gaming15d ago

Yeah for sure, sequels would be ideal. But in the current market environment where many big publishers are risk-averse, I'd rather get a remaster or remake that a developer can do on a budget that will be approved, rather than nothing for an IP.

Inverno15d ago

I rather they remaster and port over to PC and current gen all the games permanently stuck on PS360. Those games don't need remakes, they need to be given a chance to live again outside of their confined consoles and then give a few proper sequels. Like Sleeping Dogs, Motor Storm, LA Noir, should get another entry.

fan_of_gaming15d ago

Yeah I'd be fine with remasters of PS3 games too, they don't have to be remakes.

Show all comments (17)
160°

For just $6 you can play the Red Dead Redemption port on Xbox and PS5

Rockstar Games’ shiny new Red Dead Redemption port is now on GTA+, and you can play it while claiming some tasty GTA Online benefits.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
Profchaos29d ago

Rockstar still strying to make GTA plus work
Should be $6 for the rdr game on sale not 6 bucks for a months playtime

Exvalos29d ago (Edited 29d ago )

I hear ya, 49.99 or whatever the price on that game is, is a bit stiff seeing as it's just a port.

anast29d ago

Why would anyone rent this game?

jznrpg29d ago

One of my favorite games from PS3 generation. I have the remaster as there was a buy 2 get 1 free deal a while back but the price they are charging for the port is way too high although not surprising at all.

CobraKai29d ago

Still tryna milk a dried up cow

200°

Red Dead Redemption Title Update 1.04 Notes (PS4 / Switch)

Improvements have been made to the stability of the game

Read Full Story >>
support.rockstargames.com
OtterX45d ago

I still think this release was a big waste of time. I would have been a day 1 purchaser if they had redone the game w RDR2 graphics. I still own my PS3 copy, so don't see the point in picking this up if it's minimally improved.

CobraKai45d ago

I bought the game cheaper than the remaster on 360. There’s no reason in releasing the game at that price with so little improvements if any.

Profchaos45d ago

It's nice to have it as a handheld game I guess if you travel a lot but yes the ps5 release was a joke

kaos8945d ago

It plays at 60 fps on PS5 and a higher res if you value that.

OtterX45d ago (Edited 45d ago )

Yea, PS3 graphics at 60fps and 4k doesn't warrant the price. It was severely disappointing considering they already created so many of the assets north of the San Luis River (New Austin) in RDR2 and could have reused a lot of things, or reworked things bc they are the same area at different times in a fairly close history. It's friggin' Rockstar - you know they have the money and resources to have done it.

jznrpg29d ago

I like that I can play the game on current generation console but it would have been nice if they did more to make it look better.

Profchaos45d ago (Edited 45d ago )

They should have released the game in its current state not the state it launched in. Obvious we all wanted this to be a expansion to rdr 2 given that the original map was already remade in the game lots of people though this was just going to be added in later as paid DLC.

Now the game runs at 4k 60 fps on ps5 and can be brought on sale it's actually worth playing.

At launch the game was priced far to high and was a ps360 era game that couldn't run at 60 fps.

I'm in no way a frame rate snob I defended games like tears of the kingdom in the past for being 30 fps experiences but rdr was a joke at launch